Correa says Assange allegations 'not crimes' in 95 percent of the world
Updated Monday, August 27, 2012 11:13 am TWN, AFP
LONDON -- Correa told the broadsheet that the sex crime allegations against the WikiLeaks founder were “not a crime in Latin America” and had played no part in Quito's decision to grant Assange asylum ...
“The crimes that Assange is accused of, they would not be crimes in 90 to 95 percent of the planet,” Correa told The Sunday Times.
“Not to use a condom in an act between a couple, this is not a crime in Latin America ...
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/asia/australia/2012/08/27/352337/Correa-says.htm
It's still more of the usual coordinated macho bullshit from the Assangists, easily debunked as usual
... The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which his surrender is sought are alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010. They include “sexual molestation” and, in one case, rape ...
The Supreme Court
Easter Term
<2012> UKSC 22
On appeal from: <2011> EWHC Admin 2849
JUDGMENT
Assange (Appellant) v The Swedish Prosecution Authority (Respondent)
= new reply since forum marked as read
If her allegations are true that he penetrated her while she was asleep, then it was rape. If he penetrated her without the condom she insisted on, it was rape.
Sometimes the evidence in a case just comes to "he said vs. she said": and there is still a conviction. But in this case, Assange's already acknowledged having sex with her. So that part's not even an issue.
You need to educate yourself.
From the California Women's center:
http://www.justdatenow.org/dating-abuse-help/rape-resource-page/identifying-acknowleding-rape
Rape is defined differently in every state, but generally any non-consensual or forced intercourse is considered rape. This includes rape by coercion, intimidation, rape based off of an actual or perceived fear or threat, and actual force. If a victim is unable to give consent because they are intoxicated or asleep, that is rape as well.
Just a random case:
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/Force.html
The M.T.S. case involved an act of sexual intercourse between a 17-year-old male accused and a 15-year-old female victim. The accused was a house guest in the home of the victim's mother. The victim testified that one night she awoke to find the accused engaged in an act of sexual intercourse with her. She stated that she immediately slapped him and told him to "get off." The victim testified that earlier in the evening, the accused had made several comments to her regarding a "surprise visit" which she dismissed as a joke. She also said that on one occasion during the night, she talked with the accused in the upstairs hallway on a trip to the bathroom.(n17)
The accused contended that he and the victim had previously engaged in "kissing and necking" and had discussed having sexual intercourse. He stated that the victim had, on a number of occasions, encouraged him to make a surprise visit to her room. He stated that on the night in question, he and the victim met in the hallway, and proceeded to her bedroom, where they undressed and engaged in "heavy kissing" before he penetrated her. He conceded that after penetration, the victim became upset and told him to get off of her. He immediately complied.(n18)
At a juvenile proceeding, the trial court concluded as a factual finding that although the victim had consented to the "kissing and heavy petting," she did not consent to the actual act of intercourse. The court specifically concluded that the victim had not been sleeping when penetrated,(n19) but made no specific finding regarding whether the accused reasonably believed the victim consented. The trial judge concluded that the only force required for commission of the offense was "an act of sexual penetration."(n20) On appeal, the New Jersey Superior Court reversed, holding that the record was devoid of any evidence of force and specifically rejecting the trial judge's interpretation of force. The court stated such an interpretation would render the term "meaningless."
n21)
The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the judgment of the Superior Court and reinstated the disposition of the trial court.(n22) . . . Noting that any unauthorized touching constitutes a battery, the court concluded that the force or coercion required by the rape statute was grounded in the unauthorized nature of the penetration.(n24) The court contended that the proper focus for the factfinder was whether the victim had either freely given permission for the act or the accused had a reasonable belief that the victim gave permission. The court ruled that the burden of proving the act of penetration and the nonconsensual nature of the act remained on the prosecution.(n25)
The New Jersey Supreme Court appears to hold that all acts of intercourse are presumptively nonconsensual. The trial judge's factual findings focused only on the victim's subjective state of mind, not on the accused's reasonable belief there had been consent.(n26) Hence, the M.T.S case creates criminal culpability when a victim, in the recesses of her mind and without regard to any manifestation of lack of consent, fails to actually consent.
I would not be surprised if Correa's right. 
Edited to clarify: WRT Latin America.